ACTIONS ONLY NOT OPINIONS

How much weight could a metaphor from a personal letter written January 1, 1802, possibly hold two-hundred-and-four years later? Major weight it seems in the political arena. Make mention of the word God and somebody, it’s almost guaranteed, will howl this particular adage.
Thomas Jefferson, in response to a letter written by the Danbury Baptist Association concerning their right to practice religious freedom as favors granted by the state, addressed this issue with the phrase that’s still ringing throughout politics today: “…thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
These last five words, “separation between church and state,” have lead to abolishment of school prayer, removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Courthouse, and the disregard of creationism as a scientific theory. Is this what Mr. Jefferson meant by his words? Where does the constitution stand on the issue of church and state and can there ever be a true separation between the two?
In their letter to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptist Association, addressing a concern about their right to practice religious freedom writes: “…Religion is consider,d [sic] as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence [sic] of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of fre[e]men”( Dreisbach 1997). Their view as the right to practice religious freedom as a favor granted by the state, rather than an inalienable right by God meant to the Baptist that their rights could be granted or taken away after appropriate legislation. At the time the Danbury Baptist was a religious minority to the Congregationalist, the established church of Connecticut, who confidently had control of political life and persecuted the Danbury Baptist for not being a part of their religious sect.
Jefferson believed that religion is a matter which lies exclusively between man and his god of worship and owes account to no one, but his god, for his faith or type of worship. The Europeans’ pilgrimage from England was recent history to Jefferson. The Roman Catholic Church was the supreme Church of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth century and anyone who did not conform to the Catholic faith were considered heretics and persecuted. The Roman Catholic Church went as far as to forbid worship in the privacy of one’s own home, imprisonment, torture and sometimes even death. If the government was allowed to institute and enforce a “new” national church it would hold the propensity to resort back to what the American people were trying to escape, religious persecution.
As of December 15, 1791 the beginning of the first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The first amendment served as a protection for the states to prevent a national establishment of any particular denomination by the Federal Government that of which was feared other religious minorities would be forced to conform. The word “respecting” serves two key functions: it keeps congress from legislating to establish any national religion or disestablish any particular state religion; It also prevents the national government from aiding some, but not all religious organizations.(Meese E. III 2005) Keeping the First Amendment in context one can go on to say no religion shall be bound by law. For example, The United States Supreme Court (USSC) rule banning prayer, the display of the Ten Commandments or any acknowledgement of God, snatches religion in to the realm it was never intended to enter, legislation, albeit from the bench. This decision sings the praises of atheism and secular humanism and establishes them above Christianity. Atheism and secular humanism are both indeed a forms of religion just without the acknowledgement of God. This is what the First Amendment was designed to prohibit, establishment of one religion over the other.
One would have to ignore the past two-hundred and fifty years to not acknowledge and recognize the role Christianity has played in the establishment of the United States. A signer of the Declaration of Independence and the second president of The United States, John Adams writes, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God (Founding Fathers).” Recognizing the principals and the foundation that aided in the establishment of the U.S. does not force religion upon anyone. This also includes religious displays and voluntary participation in prayer etc., the First Amendment protects freedom of religion—not freedom from religion.
The words “separation of church and state” are no where to be found in the constitution and this phrase wasn’t viewed as an authoritative statement until the United States Supreme Court (USSC) referred to Jefferson’s letter in the case of Everson v. Board of Education (1947) which lead to the banning of prayer and Bible reading from public schools. However thirty-eight years later Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Wallace v. Jaffree said the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment only “forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations…” and he also concluded Thomas Jefferson was a “less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment” (Rehnquist).
Chief Justice Rehnquist articulates this for two reasons: First, he understands the limits the First Amendment placed on the Federal Government. Second, at the time when the Bill of Rights was ratified to the states Jefferson was out of the country in France and had not been involved in the legislative process. Chief Justice Rehnquist also notes Thomas Jefferson’s letter was written to the Baptist Association fourteen years later. The mention of the wall, when kept in context, was to prevent any involvement of the federal government into religious affairs including that of the USSC, an entity of the federal government. The United States Government is a government of action not a government of opinion, that can only operate within the guidelines set forth in the constitution.
Can there ever be a true separation of church and state? Anti-religion zealots do not want legislators exercising their faith when making moral decisions. However, outside of the government establishing a national religion there can never be a true separation to the extent that a legislator’s morality will not play a role in the laws passed and here’s why. Any decision an individual makes concerning religion, morality, justice and other ethical issues births from an internal conviction he or she uses to evaluate the law and how it is ethically aligned. Based on the direction of the individual’s moral compass determines how he or she will judge what’s being legislated and vote accordingly, this is in essence a form of their religious expression.
The wall of separation was to keep the government out of the church not the church out of the government. Someone’s morality is going to be legislated; this just begs the question of whose. To censure one religion just gives rise to another and steps outside the clearly drawn lines of the constitution. Church and government can go hand in hand, if kept in the proper relationship because it is a form of civil government. As the founders of the United States understood for the U.S. to become and continue to be a successful republic, self-government is a necessity and religion provides that.
More often than not, when people hear the word church to it’s assumed to apply to Christianity alone. However, church is not limited to just a narrow definition of Christianity; a church is a make up of a body of believers who share a common moral belief system (whether they believe in one god, many gods, or no god at all).
The Supreme Court’s power is limited to interpreting the constitutionality of laws enacted by the executive and legislative branch. Congress, being an entity of the legislative branch is prohibited by the constitution from meddling in religious affairs. The Supreme Court has stepped outside its boundaries by legislating from the bench and attempting to govern religious affairs. The Constitution of the United States, which all members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold, is the supreme law and has outlined the lines of freedom the government shall not cross--making the United States a government of action not a government of opinion.


References


Dreisbach, D. (1997) “Sowing useful truths and principles”: the danbury baptists, thomas
Jefferson, and the “wall of separation.”. Journal of church and state 39.n3 (summer 1997): p455-501
Founding fathers quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2006, from
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
Meese, E. III Spalding, M. & Forte D. (Eds). (2005). The Heritage guide to the
Constitution. (P. 303). Washington, DC
Rehnquist, W. Justice rehnquist, dissenting. (n.d.). Touro law center. Huntington, NY.
Touro college jacob d. fuchsberg law center. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Wallace/Rehnquist.asp